Applebaum v. Magnolis US LLC and Magonis Boats SL
- Sarah Cave
- 1:24-cv-01861
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 3
In Robert Applebaum v. Magnolis US LLC and Magonis Boats SL, Judge Cave ordered more evidence before setting damages after Defendants’ default.
Robert Applebaum and the defaulting defendants, Magnolis US LLC and Magonis Boats SL; the order requires Applebaum to provide additional damages evidence and gives the defendants an opportunity to respond or request a hearing.
What happened
Robert Applebaum sued Magnolis US LLC and Magonis Boats SL, alleging among other things that they breached a warranty connected to his purchase of a boat and accessories. The defendants did not appear or defend the case.
Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted Applebaum’s request for a default judgment and referred the damages question to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave. Applebaum asked for the boat’s full purchase price, but provided only records showing how much he paid.
Judge Cave ordered Applebaum to submit evidence by November 4, 2025, showing the difference between the boat’s value as warranted and its value as received. The defendants may respond by November 18, 2025; the court may then recommend damages based only on written submissions unless the defendants request a hearing.
The detailed version
- Applebaum v. Magnolis US LLC and Magonis Boats SL · No. 1:24-cv-01861
- Sarah Cave
- Oct. 21, 2025
Background
Robert Applebaum alleges that Magnolis US LLC and Magonis Boats SL breached a warranty related to his purchase of a boat and accessories. The defendants failed to appear and defend the action. On June 25, 2025, Applebaum moved for default judgment and submitted an attorney declaration and exhibits concerning damages.
On September 2, 2025, Judge Jennifer H. Rearden granted the motion for default judgment and referred the case to Magistrate Judge Sarah L. Cave to conduct an inquest on damages. A damages inquest is the court’s process for determining the amount owed after liability has been established by default.
Court’s Analysis
Applebaum sought the boat’s full purchase price. Judge Cave explained that this is not the proper measure of damages for a breach of warranty when a buyer has accepted nonconforming goods. Under the applicable Uniform Commercial Code measure described in the order, damages are generally the difference between the value of the goods as received and their value as warranted.
Applebaum submitted outbound wire requests showing the full amount paid for the boat, but he did not submit evidence showing the difference between those two values. The court therefore stated that it could not calculate damages with reasonable certainty based on the existing submission.
Order
Judge Cave ordered Applebaum to supplement his damages submission by Tuesday, November 4, 2025, with sufficient evidence showing the difference between the boat’s value as warranted and its value as accepted. He must serve the order and any supplemental submission on the defendants and file proof of service.
The defendants may file a response by Tuesday, November 18, 2025. If they do not respond or do not contact the court by that date to request an in-court hearing, the court intends to issue a report and recommendation on damages based only on the written submissions. This order did not set a damages amount.
Read the full 3-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.